War on Terror

The Coward's Veto: Dyke Marches, Trump, Muslims, and Cop Shootings

Feelings aren't facts, and shouldn't be treated a such.

|

You might not think lesbian activists and supporters of Donald Trump's travel ban have anything in common. But that's where you would be wrong, my friend.

Over the weekend, cities around the country hosted annual gay pride parades. Chicago also held the Dyke March, which is for those who find your everyday gay pride parade too plain-vanilla. The Dyke March is a "more inclusive, more social justice-oriented" event. Or so they claim.

This year it turned out to be something rather different, when a few participants showed up carrying the Jewish Star of David flag. "It was a flag from my congregation which celebrates my queer, Jewish identity," Laurel Grauer told a Chicago publication.

Dyke March organizers kicked them out—ostensibly because the march was pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. Grauer says she was told to leave because other marchers found her flag "triggering" and it "made them feel unsafe."

There's a lot of that going around these days. Students at Notre Dame recently protested a speech by Vice President Mike Pence because they claimed that his presence made them feel unsafe. Oberlin students likewise objected to an appearance by conservative scholar Christina Hoff Sommers. Students at Georgetown tried to prevent Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from speaking at their graduation for the same reason. At Santa Clara college, students rejected a charter application by Turning Point USA because the group—which supports "fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government" supposedly made them feel unsafe, too.

In all of these cases, it's important to note one salient fact: Objectively speaking, nobody was actually unsafe. None of the flag-carriers at the march, and none of the speakers, presented any threat to the safety of anyone. They made no verbal threats. They brandished no weapons. They assaulted nobody.

Thus the claim of feeling unsafe was one of two things. If it was sincere, then it was baseless and irrational—as baseless and irrational as the fear expressed by someone who claims to feel unsafe in the presence of the color blue. Or the claim was insincere—a way of trying to justify an ignoble desire to silence someone simply because of a political disagreement.

Conservatives might be tempted to look down their noses at such behavior. But they have their own problem with it, exemplified by President Trump's travel ban.

The ban originally applied to people from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. As Cato Institute immigration expert Alex Nowrasteh pointed out back in February, "foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period."

Indeed, the odds of being killed by a foreign terrorist—from any country, never mind those seven—are more than 45,000 to 1 (and they're 138 million to 1 for illegal-immigrant terrorists). Americans are four times more likely to die from a heat wave, 74 times more likely to die by suffocation, 125 times more likely to die by gunshot, and 6,428 times more likely to die from heart disease than from the act of a foreign-born terrorist.

Heck, Americans are 50 times more likely to die from motorcycle accidents. A rational federal policy aimed at protecting American lives would ban all motorcycles long before it got around to banning entry from the listed countries.

The difference, of course, is that Americans are not rational about their safety. People don't sit around arguing about the best way to prevent suffocation, even though it presents a far greater threat than terrorism, which people argue about all the time. King-sized comforters don't make them "feel unsafe," but Muslims and swarthy Middle Eastern men do.

Now, that fear is one of two things. Either it is sincere but statistically baseless—or it is an insincere attempt to dress up ignoble attitudes about people who are different.

But feelings aren't facts, and they make a poor basis for policy. When claims about subjective feelings are used to exclude people from events or places, they amount to a coward's veto—the equivalent of the heckler's veto. Neither has any place in an open society.

One final thought: There's another area where feelings shouldn't outweigh facts: the use of deadly force by police officers. In several recent cases—most notoriously that of Philando Castile—juries have acquitted police officers of what look like shockingly unjustifiable shootings. In every case, the defense relied on the argument that the officer feared for his life.

But again: Feelings aren't facts—and they shouldn't be treated as such.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Advertisement

NEXT: Milwaukee County Sued For Requiring 10 Page Permit Application to Play Pokemon Go in Public Park

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mr. Hinkle has forgotten about the timeless principle of feelz before realz.

  2. So they’re either irrational or insincere cowards. It’s not mutually exclusive, they can certainly be both.

  3. In their defense, both Mike Pence and Jeh Johnson are extremely dangerous people. Politicians in power are, by definition.
    The others? meh
    I’d be perfectly happy to forbid every platform to public serpents. Real people, not so much.

    1. The abstract “threat” a powerful politician presents has nothing to do with physical proximity, though. Rationally, the further the politician is from DC or whatever physical location they operate out of actually decreases their immediate power.

      I know your not making a super-serious argument, but yeah…I was compelled to respond. These protesters should be given no quarter.

  4. It would probably be more rational to put walls around some Chicago or Baltimore neighbourhoods to keep people in. (Old Ohio joke about Michigan: then fill it with water)

  5. I would draw a different conclusion; people organizing an event should state explicitly any symbols or sentiments they wish to ban up front. You state in your organizing flier that you don’t want any Jewish symbols displayed? Great. Kick the Jews out. You didn’t think of it? Tough. Deal with it, you sniveling snowflake.

    Is the Trump Ban based on feeeeelings? Or is it based on a reasonable extrapolation from current events? Or is it a little of both?

    I would say that the Dyke Parade organizers get to ban Jews if they want to, on no better basis than it’s their party and they’ll snub who they want to….provided they decide in advance. I would also say that the American People, and by extension their elected representatives, can ban whoever they want to from entering the country, unless they capriciously change their mind in the case of people already approved.

    And both groups can also deal with the ridicule if they make foolish decisions.

    1. Great. Kick the Jews out.

      Are we talking parades on public streets, confined to the sidewalks, or simple displays from private residences?

      If you’re gonna occupy the streets and the sidewalks, I fail to see how you reasonably kick the Jews out and still ostensibly march as a lawful application of public accommodation.

      1. Yeah, a parade on public ways is not exactly the same as a private party.

        1. It depends on whether they got a permit for their event or whether they’re just “occupying” the area and denying others the right to use it. If they got a permit and assuming that there is no impermissible discrimination in who can get a permit for a parade (e.g. not okay to discriminate based on viewpoints but okay to regulate time, manner and place) then I’d say it’s basically a private event in that the organizers have the right to decide who gets to participate. If they’re just illegally taking over a public area and preventing others from using, then arrest them.

          1. If they got a permit and assuming that there is no impermissible discrimination in who can get a permit for a parade (e.g. not okay to discriminate based on viewpoints but okay to regulate time, manner and place) then I’d say it’s basically a private event in that the organizers have the right to decide who gets to participate.

            Even then, this violates the very notion of public accommodation to it’s core and effectively moots much of the point of the protest. The person in question wasn’t anti-lesbian and was, quite arguably, simply exercising her free speech rights on public property and in a manner that didn’t demonstrably detract from the parade around her.

            *Assuming no violence* if the NAACP licensed a time/place for a parade and none of their members showed up because 15 min. beforehand, the The World Series Champs (and their fans) showed up en masse and occupied the space, I’m inclined to say that the NAACP lost in the court of mass appeal/public opinion and *maybe* should get their licensing fees back and possibly some organization fees. Even if something exactly like that happened, I’d have a hard time saying the NAACP could exclude event-relevant but ostensibly identifiable sports fans from their next public rally.

          2. Well, fuck parades anyway. Roads are for getting from one place to another.

            1. +1. If people want to march around with parade floats they can go rent a race track for a few hours and do some laps their. Even have bleachers and people don’t have to worry about missing their favorite float as it’ll be back around eventually.

        2. They have a right to restrict, it is just the irganizers aoparently tout their parade as being exceptionally inclusive.

      2. If it’s your event, you should get to pick. We don’t require the NAACP to include the KKK in its public events. Of course, I think the ‘Public Accommodation’ argument for making bigots serve Blacks is bogus, too.

        Now, if the city wants to make it a general condition of parade permits that all events must be endlessly inclusive, that would be different. It would also allow the Westboro Bab-tist Church to march in any Gay Pride Parades.

        1. What was that kerfuffle over the St. Patrick’s Day Parade all those years?

        2. If it’s your event, you should get to pick. We don’t require the NAACP to include the KKK in its public events. Of course, I think the ‘Public Accommodation’ argument for making bigots serve Blacks is bogus, too.

          You’re conflating a few issues. NAACP/KKK predates public accommodation, are diametrically opposed, and, at least for one side, is/was more existential.

          I don’t know the explicit details of the parade license in question, but the general notion of it being on a public roadway connotes all are welcome. To the same idiotic points used in favor of gay marriage and/or against traditional marriage; the Nazis felons are free to attend as long as they’re relatively in the closet but the Jews can’t come if they’re displaying flags?

          Assuming the existential parts are handled it becomes a bit of an oxymoron where the city picks winners and losers in a somewhat explicitly anti-democratic manner. If you held a gay rights march an nobody showed up with a rainbow flag, but everybody showed up with Jewish/Israeli flags, you either fucked up or lost whatever argument your were trying to win. Personally, I’d love to see it as some manner of disincentivization for this sort of SJW-y disruption, but I could see some manner of license-fee swapping so that the Israeli organization doesn’t end up parading on your dime.

          1. “all are welcome” to observe a parade, sure.

            But to be a participant? Nope. That’s up to the discretion of those organising. You know, the people putting time and money to make it happen? Or are you saying you have a right to their labor?

            1. You know, the people putting time and money to make it happen? Or are you saying you have a right to their labor?

              This starts with or assumes that they’re getting a message across using exclusively their own goods or labor when they explicitly acquire a license because they are not. It also assumes a zero sum from a ideologically qualitative(ly unlimited or synergistic) power source.

              If the city issues you a license and you fail to parade, you don’t get your money back and this was my point about fee-swapping. If the Cubs pre-empted an NAACP parade, you have a legit contractual dispute with damages and probable cause that can be resolved in court. This issue is even more trivially idiotic than that. It would be akin to an NAACP parade excluding black Cubs fans on the South Side. Do Cubs fans get to march in the NAACP parade on the South Side? Unless it’s specifically in the former Comiskey Park the answer is Fuck yeah, even at that, the field is owned by the taxpayers of IL. Neither The White Sox nor the NAACP own the street to evict anyone and/or oppress their 1A rights. More importantly, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, we don’t silence free speech because it scares us, a king would do that and we’re all marching on rented property together. Make the news because you’ve got the Palestenian Flag on a rainbow field next to the Israeli flag on a rainbow field or fuck off.

            2. More or less my own point. I do think that organizations should be expected to openly state what groups or symbols are excluded, or what broad message is intended and what groups the event is limited to.

              You stated up front that the parade is for One-legged Episcopalian mimes and their families only? Fine. No Baptist accordian players, no Equal Rights for Mollusks activists. But have a plan, stick to it, and don’t make sudden changes on site.

              1. More or less my own point.

                You stated up front that the parade is for One-legged Episcopalian mimes and their families only? Fine. No Baptist accordian players, no Equal Rights for Mollusks activists.

                Uh… no. Show in a court of law that the Baptist accordian players showed up in numbers to effectively overwhelm your demonstration and/or that the Mollusk Rights activists aren’t Episcopalian and/or family and you might get your licensing fee back. Show that they did so in an organized fashion with intent and you might win some damages. Otherwise, they can’t trespass on property you don’t own and free speech doesn’t whimsically trump some other free speech. Especially when one group thinks we should all be subject to the will of the people and the other is willing to give up claims based on acts of God. Being afraid of a symbol is insufficient evidence of any/all damages even if you explicitly licensed your anti-lesbian jew (anti-jew lesbian?) parade.

                1. You cannot contract with the government to keep Jews off a public street any more than the next person could contract to keep lesbians off.

                  I don’t believe in public accommodations because, contrary to their name, they compel behavior of private resources and property. Parades in the street would be the explicit/lliteral public accommodations as, if you want to use public property (which would/could exist without the accommodations), you’re going to have to put up with the fact that the Jews own it just as much as you do (probably more).

            3. “You know, the people putting time and money to make it happen?”
              The taxpayers who funded the roads?

              What about the business owner who put his time and money into developing his bakery? Does he get to decide who gets to participate in the consumption of his wares?

    2. Is the Trump Ban based on feeeeelings? Or is it based on a reasonable extrapolation from current events? Or is it a little of both?

      Feelings. 10000%

      Which is why every argument in favor is buttfucking retarded on its face.

  6. the”unsafe” angle is the newest progressive fraud. No one is buying it. “I’m offended” doesn’t work as well as it used to, so they need to come up with another tactic.

    How many fucking progtards personally (irl) told me last year that I needed to vote for Clinton because they were “scared” for Trump. I don’t believe that for one second – you are saying I need to vote YOUR feels because you can’t come up with a rational argument. Oh wait, that’s a tool of the white male patri… blah blah blah.

    1. Nobody told me I had to vote for Clinton because they were scared of Trump. Of course that’s probably because my Liberal acquaintance are well aware that my reaction to their claiming to be scared of Trump is likely to be “good!”.

  7. the”unsafe” angle is the newest progressive fraud. No one is buying it. “I’m offended” doesn’t work as well as it used to, so they need to come up with another tactic.

    How many fucking progtards personally (irl) told me last year that I needed to vote for Clinton because they were “scared” for Trump. I don’t believe that for one second – you are saying I need to vote YOUR feels because you can’t come up with a rational argument. Oh wait, that’s a tool of the white male patri… blah blah blah.

    1. Weaponizing your compassion into a club to beat you over the head and compel your submission.

      It’s a truly evil tactic, with an entirely predictable result: people feed their sadistic glee over the protestations to protect themselves from the club.

      The Left are fundamentally parasites on civilization, consuming the trust required to make civilization function.

  8. the”unsafe” angle is the newest progressive fraud. No one is buying it. “I’m offended” doesn’t work as well as it used to, so they need to come up with another tactic.

    How many fucking progtards personally (irl) told me last year that I needed to vote for Clinton because they were “scared” for Trump. I don’t believe that for one second – you are saying I need to vote YOUR feels because you can’t come up with a rational argument. Oh wait, that’s a tool of the white male patri… blah blah blah.

    1. the”unsafe” angle is the newest progressive fraud. No one is buying it. “I’m offended” doesn’t work as well as it used to, so they need to come up with another tactic.

      That and by claiming to be “unsafe,” along with equating words with actual violence, they can then justify to themselves using actual violence to shut up the people making them feel “unsafe” with their verbal “violence.”

      1. What’s going to be harder for them to justify is the way they will get beaten like a red-headed stepchild any time they attack anyone who might actually be described as ‘threatening’.

        1. gingerphobe.

          1. Who isn’t?

            1. love them.

              1. Fried or barbecued?

          2. Not gingers in general. Just the ginger stepchildren.

  9. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. That flag was intolerant, therefore in the name of tolerance it cannot be tolerated.

    1. You’ve been talking to Tony, haven’t you.

      1. Talking? That’s like a seminar of intolerance about the intolerance of intolerance.

    2. Yeah, those damn flags are always causing trouble, starting fights and killing babies.

      1. I can’t even tell you how many babies I have personally seen smothered in flags. Right in front of my eyes.

    3. Look, there only two types of people I can’t stand in this world.

      Those who are intolerant of other people’s cultures…

      …and the Dutch.

  10. You guys like to talk about Freedom of Association, Speech, Markets and all that jazz, but the moment you don’t like how people are using their freedoms, you start complaining that people just aren’t as smart/rational/whatever as you.

    Which is part of why I call libertarianism a Utopian philosophy. All your idealized systems break down under contract with humans.

    1. Your irony detector needs adjustment.

    2. please do the algebra on “lesbians welcome, but only the kind of lesbians who aren’t Israeli and we’re not going to tell you unless and until you arrive with an Israeli flag…also you’re stupid for not already knowing that”

    3. A parade being held on public streets is not the same thing as a private party being held on private property. Furthermore, way to completely miss the point:

      Thus the claim of feeling unsafe was one of two things. If it was sincere, then it was baseless and irrational?as baseless and irrational as the fear expressed by someone who claims to feel unsafe in the presence of the color blue. Or the claim was insincere?a way of trying to justify an ignoble desire to silence someone simply because of a political disagreement.

      Either they’re behaving irrationally, in which case they deserve to be mocked for their stupidity, or they’re being insincere and their real goal is to shut down speech they disagree with, in which case they deserve to mocked, scorned, and ridiculed mercilessly.

      I suppose one could argue that in a free society people have the right to refuse to listen to any argument they don’t like, but that doesn’t apply here. They weren’t just passively ignoring the Jews who showed up with a “triggering” flag, they demanded they leave and not take part in an event that they claimed was an “inclusive” event, which also makes them hypocrites.

      1. Last but not least, they were using aggression or the threat thereof (I think it’s safe to assume that if the Jews had refused to leave they would have used violence to expel them) in order to trample on the free speech rights of people who were absolutely not a threat to them, unless you buy into the horseshit that words are the same as violence.

        All your idealized systems break down under contract with humans.

        As opposed to Marxism, which will totally work!

        1. All your idealized systems break down under contract with humans.

          I think Escher had a bit of a Freudian slip.

          1. Yeah, I noticed that and was planning on putting “[sic]” after the word contract, but forgot.

            EDIT BUTTON!

            1. Has nobody considered what the trolls would do with an edit button?

              1. Has nobody considered what the trolls would do with an edit button?

                Fuck better-looking corpses?

    4. Which is part of why I call libertarianism a Utopian philosophy.

      Then you are an ignoramus, who doesn’t understand the terms he’s attempting to condescend with.

      1. You are 100 percent right and your username is genius. (See: little Bobby Tables, xkcd).

    5. And you, apparently having Down Syndrome, cannot grasp the notion that one can criticize something without wanting it to be illegal.

      Or can I safely assume your criticism of, say, Christianity, necessarily translates to support for outlawing Christianity?

      Speaking of breaking down under contract with humans, the extent to which leftists cannot, in the depth of their minds, distinguish between not liking something, and wanting it to be illegal, is pretty disturbing.

  11. Thus the claim of feeling unsafe was one of two things. If it was sincere, then it was baseless and irrational?as baseless and irrational as the fear expressed by someone who claims to feel unsafe in the presence of the color blue. Or the claim was insincere?a way of trying to justify an ignoble desire to silence someone simply because of a political disagreement.

    Probably both, depending on who’s doing the pants wetting. For many of the “usefulless idiots” it’s probably irrationality, but I have to suspect that at least some of the whiners know exactly what they’re doing: using their claims of being “triggered” to shut up their political opponents.


  12. As Cato Institute immigration expert Alex Nowrasteh pointed out back in February, “foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.”

    Umm…so because they are incompetent terrorists it means we should just let them in? I mean…this paragraph isn’t exactly an air-tight argument and that’s before you ask yourself ‘did our current immigration policy prevent more attacks from being attempted, or were there just not that many attempts made’.

    Bizarre conclusions from the data in my opinion, although I don’t discount the argument entirely.

    1. Oh, and this:

      Dyke March organizers kicked them out?ostensibly because the march was pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist.

      I had no idea that dykes in particular advocate for the death of all Jews, but hey there it is in black and white. Note to self: Lesbians are no longer kosher.

      1. No fins, no scales.
        No cloven hoofs nor chewing of cud for that matter.

        Never were kosher.

        1. You pick yours up in different bars than me.

      2. Maybe it’s changed. But it seems like anti-Zionists used to make a point of saying how they aren’t anti-Jew, just anti-Israel.

        1. So basically they’ve decided to stop lying.

          1. I just don’t see what being a Lesbian and being for the destruction of a particular people have in common at all. These are two issues that couldn’t be more unrelated, and yet it’s being used as a justification here. It’s almost ironic for one marginal group that fought so hard for it’s rights to advocate for the literal murder of another. Especially when I can’t really think of any significant animosity between lesbians the Jewish people barring the usual religious reasons, but it’s not like the Palestinians aren’t worse on that particular issue.

            The Lesbians want the Jews to die at the hands of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians want the Lesbians dead at their own hands. Pretty novel logic there, Vaginas.

            1. Especially so, since Israel is literally the only country in the middle east that protects homosexuals instead of arresting or killing them.

            2. I just don’t see what being a Lesbian and being for the destruction of a particular people have in common at all. These are two issues that couldn’t be more unrelated

              I think we can force one if we try.

          2. There is a lot of overlap, but anti-Zionist and anti-Jew are not one and the same.

            1. The worst kind of lying is lying to yourself.

        2. Being ‘anti-Zionist’ is a little different from being ‘pro-Palestinian’ though, and yet it appears that the Lesbian organizers were both. If so, they are evil bitches.

          As an example, I don’t really give a shit about ‘Zion’ but I am Anti-Palestinian because they are asshole terrorists that shoot rockets into residential area’s.

          1. I’m just anti-assholes-who- shoot-rockets-into-residential-areas.

          2. I’m anti-collectivist, so you and I probably wouldn’t get along.

      3. >>>no longer kosher

        depends how you kill them.

      4. The Judenhass has always been a deeply-held belief among the leftards, all the way back to Karl Marx, the self-hating Jew who first wrote about wanting to wipe out the Jews.

        What this goes to show is that the march isn’t about gay rights at all, it’s just a marxist front.

        -jcr

    2. Obviously, the fine and wise gentlemen at Reason don’t want to count the number of people killed by terrorists from those countries in that same time throughout the world. It’s like saying that there is nothing to fear from lightning since lightning has never struck me in the bathroom.

  13. People don’t sit around arguing about the best way to prevent suffocation, even though it presents a far greater threat than terrorism, which people argue about all the time. King-sized comforters don’t make them “feel unsafe,” but Muslims and swarthy Middle Eastern men do.

    a. People are stupid.
    b. People are cowardly.
    c. Media outlets make more money when they scare stupid cowardly people.
    d. Politicians get elected/reelected by scaring stupid cowardly people.

    Not rocket surgery.

    1. people don’t discuss ways to prevent suffocation because if a person is to stupid to not know how to suffocate then we would all be better off without them. some problems are their own solution.

      1. I think the point is, that you shouldn’t worry about either suffocation OR terrorists.

      2. People actually DO discuss ways to prevent suffocation. They do it all the time.

        Parents, teachers, and caregivers discuss it with kids. There are commercials and warning labels that discuss it.

        It’s something we all learn. Through discussion. Because not knowing is dangerous.

        How about that? Incredibly wrong at such a basic level. Reason is becoming MSNBC

  14. Dyke March organizers kicked them out?ostensibly because the march was pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. Grauer says she was told to leave because other marchers found her flag “triggering” and it “made them feel unsafe.”

    Conservatives might be tempted to look down their noses at such behavior. But they have their own problem with it, exemplified by President Trump’s travel ban.
    Your similarity meter needs adjustment Hinkle.

    More open borders nonsense.

  15. Indeed, the odds of being killed by a foreign terrorist?from any country, never mind those seven?are more than 45,000 to 1

    Never tell me the odds.

    Also, this is irrelevant. Countries can police their borders and deny entry to whomever they please. It is good practice to not let known criminals into ones country. Therefor, those attempting entry should be screened. The end.

    1. The odds of being asked to remove shoes has dramatically increased. Getting close to 1 to 1, I bet.

      “Therefor, those attempting entry should be screened. The end.”

      Why on earth would a criminal attempting entry submit to a police screening? That kind of theatre is strictly for squares.

      1. When I last flew it was a 1 to 1 ratio and that was probably around 7 years ago. Is it less than that now because if so it would be a surprise.

        1. I think if you’re over 80 they exempt you now.

          Which seems backwards. When I’m 80 I will commit all sorts of suicidal crimes, I’m 80 and have no real reason to keep hanging around.

          1. When I’m 80 I will commit all sorts of suicidal crimes

            Just the one. The rest will be semi-suicidal or you’ll only attempt them.

        2. TSA pre-check is your friend, if you can swing it.

    2. Should they be screened?

      If screening produces no significant ROI with respect to crime/terror rates you are simply pissing money down a rathole.

      IF IT SAYVEZ JUST ONE CHILD…

      1. You can’t produce an ROI for that kind of thing, though, because you can’t measure things that don’t happen.

        Doesn’t mean you should ignore history, though.

        1. Attempting to prevent unlikely crimes is a fool’s errand from a cost/benefit perspective. You are much better off allowing it to sporadically take place and punishing the perpetrators after the fact.

          That is unless you happen to be in the business of profiting from people’s fear and ignorance (media/politicians).

          1. So much for an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure rhetoric!

            1. Do you worry about the sun blowing up or Yellowstone erupting?

              Do you think we could stop it?

              Do you think banning travel will stop a determined terrorist?

              It’s eyewash to aggrandize politicians to their ignorant constituents. Expensive eyewash.

              1. It’ll stop the stupid terrorists, and there seem to be a lot of those.

          2. so your saying we shouldn’t lock our doors at night or keep a fire extinguisher or have insurance. We prepare all the time for things that may never happen. Prime example I live in an area where every new house is designed for earthquakes, the cost is large a min of 15% of the house cost yet I point out in the 170 years the town has existed no building has ever had structural damaged by an earthquake. broken glass and cracked windows is about the most to happen. we have had a few homes fall into mine shafts though.

            1. so your saying we shouldn’t lock our doors at night or keep a fire extinguisher or have insurance

              You should weigh those decisions and make those choices for yourself, based upon your particular set of circumstances.

              Just don’t force me to pay for them for you.

              Personally, while I have fire insurance/auto insurance/life insurance…there is no way in hell I’d even consider purchasing terrorism insurance.

            2. “so your saying we shouldn’t lock our doors at night or keep a fire extinguisher or have insurance.”
              If you live in New York City, should you buy volcano insurance? Or put grizzly bear traps around your house in case a grizzly bear shows up?

              The point being, when it comes to insurance or preventive measures, we generally only take measures to prevent or insure for things that have some remotely reasonable likelihood of happening. One can quite validly argue that much of what is favored in the name of stopping terrorism or crime by illegals is akin to taking alligator repellent with you on your trip to Wisconsin.

  16. Heh: the HuffPo story on this has comments disabled.

    Sarah Palin suing the NYT? Comments enabled.

    1. Why even go to a ‘news outlet’ that has endorsed disenfranchising people based on their ethnicity?

    2. That’s the PuffHo for you.

  17. Can we go through a statistical analysis of the chances of being killed by cops and whether that justifies worrying about it or tsking measures against it?

    No? Then can that bloody stupid argument die?

    1. You are more likely to die of a peanut allergy than be shot by a cop so what’s the fuss about?

      An American is more likely to choke on a Lego brick than be killed in a drone strike.

    2. True enough, but at the same time, the odds of a cop being killed by someone he’s pulling over is also negligible. Being a police officer isn’t even close to being the most dangerous job. “Blacklivesmatter” and “bluelivesmatter” folks are living in neighboring provinces of fantasyland.

  18. Americans are four times more likely to die from a heat wave, 74 times more likely to die by suffocation, 125 times more likely to die by gunshot, and 6,428 times more likely to die from heart disease than from the act of a foreign-born terrorist.

    Trump’s ban is a hysterical over-reaction but this line of argument is fucking retarded. You conflate non-intentional events with intentional ones as if heat-waves were somehow directed.

    If someone was organising heat-waves we’d want someone to fucking do something about it. As it is, we have a shit-load of regulations covering workplaces and other public places to reduce the numbers of casualties.

    Heck, Americans are 50 times more likely to die from motorcycle accidents. A rational federal policy aimed at protecting American lives would ban all motorcycles long before it got around to banning entry from the listed countries.

    And this is the dumbest argument of all. Seriously – road deaths? Is there any activity more regulated than driving motor vehicles?

    From the manufacturing of vehicles to their road serviceability, every step is covered by laws.

    Every driver must be licenced, every vehicle insured, maintained and inspected.

    Drivers can be stopped at a whim, breathelised and drug tested. There are entire police forces dedicated to controlling this one activity, millions of traffic cameras to monitor it, and thousands of civil servants to administer it.

    1. From the manufacturing of vehicles to their road serviceability, every step is covered by laws.

      Every driver must be licenced, every vehicle insured, maintained and inspected.

      Drivers can be stopped at a whim, breathelised and drug tested. There are entire police forces dedicated to controlling this one activity, millions of traffic cameras to monitor it, and thousands of civil servants to administer it.

      All of which is as equally unnecessary as a travel ban.

    2. An excellent point, frankly, in that the arguments presented are pretty much bullshit.

      1. Because government needs to preemptively DOOO SOMETHING to solve this non-problem.

        1. I’m not arguing in favour of the travel ban, in arguing against bullshit comparisons.

          The point of an analogy is to compare like with like. Comparing something less regulated with something more regulated to argue that the former should be even less regulated makes no sense.

          1. Then you completely missed the point.

            The point is that being involved in a terror incident is extremely unlikely and not worth spending time or money on attempting to preempt.

            The comparisons were not put in the article as a case for regulation or not, but to show the relative dangers of terrorism by comparing them to know everyday activities. IOW, if you’re worried about terrorism, you should be REALLY worried about motorcycle accidents because you’re 50 times more likely to die from one. Yet we don’t ban motorcycle use to preempt those deaths.

            1. What other issues that the writer’s here want reforming would survive such an analysis?

              It is not a good argument if you do not apply it to your own sacred cows.

              1. Oh really?

                Pick a subject.

                Should you spend your limited resources on preventing bad things that are likely to happen or on things unlikely to happen?

                1. See above: police shooting people in traffic stops.

                  My problem is not with the conclusion, but that this argument is a stupid way to get to that conclusion.

                  Events like terrorism are not accidents or Acts of God, they are the result of human malice or idiocy and are in a different category of analysis.

                  1. Accidents/non-accidents has nothing to do with it. It’s whether you are going to expend energy attempting to prevent it.

                    I don’t want to prevent cops from shooting innocents either. I want the law to hang them after they do.

                    1. So you will be against requiring cops to use body cameras and such because that is wasted energy?

                    2. Body camera establishes guilt or innocence after the fact. It doesn’t prevent the crime from happening, with the notable small role deterrence plays.

                      I’d much rather see a repeal of immunity laws and force cops to the same standards the rest of the citizenry follows than to pay for body cameras.

                    3. So when it comes to police shooting your priority is punishing but when it’s terrorism it’s risk?

                    4. Only if the cameras don’t have the option to shut them off with the simple flick of a switch-eliminate the on/off button and then cameras will become a much more effective deterrent to abuses (alleged) by policemen. This should also apply to making sure the camera batteries are 100% fully charged before any shift change takes place-period!

                    5. So when it comes to police shooting your priority is punishing but when it’s terrorism it’s risk?

                      Government shouldn’t be in the prevention business at all. Trying to prevent bad shit from happening invariably infringes upon someone’s rights.

                      To be perfectly clear…we shouldn’t be trying to prevent either. Simply treat those sporadic actions as the crimes they are and try, convict and punish the guilty after the fact.

                      You can’t prevent crime. See the WoD…

            2. The point is that being involved in a terror incident is extremely unlikely and not worth spending time or money on attempting to preempt

              I’m not afraid of being shot by cops. Why are you? What’s the chances of that happening?

              1. I’m not afraid of being shot by cops. Why are you?

                I’m not.

                But when it does happen, I’d like them to pay for their crimes. Same with terrorists.

    3. Just because I’m in a derailing mood, why do you think heat waves are not directed?

      If you accept that we have control over the climate through co2 production, why wouldn’t Canada and Russia not being trying like crazy to warm things up? It might even be good for the US – make Mexico unliveable and we won’t need to build a wall. It’s not like once we turn Mexico into a hospitable desert we can’t move north 150 miles north, possibly into Canada, to get back to the climate of our childhoods.

  19. Also, not a great idea to compare terrorist attacks with ‘ordinary’ gun deaths unless you want tougher laws on gun ownership.

    1. Immigration paranoia and gun control are exactly the same argument, with exactly the same stupidshit premises.

      1. And yet gun ownership by the populace is one of the best possible defenses against terrorism. Coincidence that some want more gun restrictions yet also more influx of people from terrorist-infused countries? You decide. Personally I just don’t think they’ve thought about it. At all.

        1. ‘And yet gun ownership by the populace is one of the best possible defenses against terrorism.”
          Right, if only more people in the WTC had guns they could’ve shot down the planes.

          “Coincidence that some want more gun restrictions yet also more influx of people from terrorist-infused countries? You decide. ”
          So, pro-gun control people want more terrorist attacks? You’re entering Mikey’s levels of inanity here.

          “Personally I just don’t think they’ve thought about it.”
          Praeteritio much?

  20. …the march was pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist.

    If you are homosexual and want to not feel unsafe, which of the two Middle East locations should you choose.

    1. Well, if you’re one of these Lesbians you go to ‘Palestine’ (Not a place, nor has it ever been a place) and then are found a few months later dead in the desert due to what is later determined to be blunt force trauma to their entire body.

      When it’s pointed out they could have been stoned to death, Jews are blamed for not doing more to protect Lesbian rights and the two-state solution gains supporters.

      That about cover it?

  21. First they introduced the right to health care. Now they introduce the right to feel safe.

    1. But there will never, ever, be a right to be right.

  22. “Indeed, the odds of being killed by a foreign terrorist?from any country, never mind those seven?are more than 45,000 to 1 ”

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

    1. But it is a legitimate basis for determining the allocation of limited resources.

  23. THIS WRITERS NUMBERS ARE BULL****

    Islam is a political system, NOT a religion, and unless and until humanity wakes the hell up and STOPS referring to it as a religion, there is no hope. Islam is a hyper-aggressive, militaristic, expansionist, totalitarian political system designed to create a super-rich micro-oligarchical ruling class with a massive, destitute, genetically handicapped underclass below.
    Here is a quote from Osama bin Laden that sums it all up:
    “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
    ?Osama Bin Laden
    (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

    1. Well, you can pour maple syrup on a puddle of bloody, diarrhetic hogshiIt all you want, but it will never, ever be pancakes.
      THIS is how the musloid problem should be faced and solved. It isn’t difficult.
      Use the only thing they understand ? PHYSICAL FORCE AND STRENGTH.
      Aggressively proselytize. Fully acknowledge that even a converted musloid, like a domesticated wild animal, will be dangerous for the rest of his life and can never be fully trusted.

      http://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/…..heres-how/

      1. “Musloid”
        Haha, ok that’s new to me. Anyway, cool story bro.

  24. How about a pride parade specifically for fans of recreational drugs and to raise awareness about legalization of ALL drugs?

    It could be called The Weed Walk or Psilocybin Parade or LSD Loiterers or maybe even Dudes on ‘Ludes.

    All would be welcome to participate, except for AG Sessions, of course.

  25. Gosh, where would we be without the looter press to press forth with irrelevant inanities underscoring their dreadful apprehension that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time?

  26. It’s a shame that a national flag has co-opted a religious symbol, because generally speaking why would a parade for supposedly oppressed people want a state symbol waving around?

  27. There was a story just the other day about an 21 year old girl having acid thrown on her face because she wasn’t covered up.

    This was in London.

    That sort of thing, not terrorism, is why you don’t want Muslims in. Because they will use the threat of physical violence to impose their culture on the rest of the country

  28. Nassim Nicholas Taleb squashes the “terrorists are no risk”

    The Fat Tail Risk of Terrorism

    WSJ article to the effect that “Terrorism kills far fewer people than falls from ladders”; the article was written by a war correspondant, Ted Koppel and is very similar to his Angels thesis.

    Now let’s try a bullshit-detecting probabilistic reasoning.
    A- Falls from ladder are thin-tailed, and the estimate based on past observations should hold for the next year with an astonishing accuracy. They are subjected to strong bounds, etc. It is “impossible” to have, say, >1% of a country’s population dying from falls from ladders the same year. The chances are less than 1 in several trillion trillion trillion years. Hence a journalistic statement about risk converges to the scientific statement.

    B- Terrorism is fat tailed. Your estimation from past data has monstrous errors. A record of the people who died last few years has very very little predictive powers of how many will die the next year, and is biased downward. One biological event can decimate the population.
    May be “reasonable” to claim that terrorism is overhyped, that our liberty is more valuable, etc. I believe so. But the comparison here is a fallacy and sloppy thinking is dangerous. (Worse, Koppel compares terrorism today to terrorism 100 years ago when a terrorist could inflict very limited harm.)

  29. +50 for slipping in talk of the travel ban once again in a Reason article. +50 for it being completely unrelated.

  30. Indeed, the odds of being killed by a foreign terrorist?from any country, never mind those seven?are more than 45,000 to 1 (and they’re 138 million to 1 for illegal-immigrant terrorists).

    Well, I guess that makes it alright then bringing large numbers of people into the US who have low education and skills, a leftist and authoritarian mind-set, and will require massive amounts of government aid! Bring them on, we obviously need more people like that to thrive!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.